Weekly Legal Updates main objective is to update the legal knowledge of law students, lawyers, academicians and other professionals. If we do not update our legal knowledge regularly, our knowledge become redundant.
Supreme Court's contempt notice to Patanjali: 'Entire country taken for ride'
The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on Patanjali Ayurved over 'misleading' advertisements and banned the company from advertising any product related to diseases or other medical conditions. The Supreme Court said the "entire country was being taken for a ride" through such misleading advertisements.
This ruling follows a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association against Patanjali Ayurved's alleged dissemination of misleading advertisements.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has served a contempt of court notice to Patanjali Ayurved and Acharya Balakrishnan for their involvement in spreading misleading advertisements across various media platforms. They have been granted a three-week period to respond to the notice.
During the hearing, Justices Hima Kohli and A. Amanullah criticised Patanjali Ayurved for releasing advertisements despite previous court orders issued last year.
In November 2023 as well, the Supreme Court warned Patanjali that it would be fined Rs 1 crore if a false claim is made that its products can "cure" certain diseases.
While referring to their previous warning to Patanjali, the bench said, "Despite our warning you are saying your products are better than chemical-based medicines."
The bench decided to issue notices for contempt of court orders to the two people featured in the advertisements, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balakrishnan. Justice Amanullah said that these individuals must file a reply and explain how they disregarded the court's orders.
Sanghi, representing Patanji Ayurved, defended Baba Ramdev, stating that he is a 'sanyasi' who does not know English. However, Justice Amanullah deemed the document containing the advertisements as contemptuous and in clear violation of the court's orders.
Senior advocate PS Patwalia, representing the Indian Medical Association, highlighted a press conference held by Baba Ramdev following a previous Supreme Court order.
Patwalia said that Patanjali Ayurved had published advertisements in violation of the law, claiming to cure various ailments, including diabetes and asthma. Patwalia also mentioned a defamation case filed by Patanjali Ayurved against the Advertising Council.
On this, the top court remarked that there can’t be any defence of advertisements showing cures for illnesses including diabetes and blood pressure.
"What do you mean by permanent relief to the diseases? It means only two things - either death or cure," the Supreme Court said, asking Patanjali Ayurved to show how they discharged their duties to tackle misleading advertisements.
During the hearing, the bench questioned the actions taken by the Ministry of Ayush in response to the misleading advertisements.
The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) said that data was being collected on complaints and violations by Patanjali Ayurved. However, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with the ministry's response, urging urgent action and self-monitoring regarding such advertisements.
(Courtesy:- India Today, 27 February 2024)
SC to Centre: Take call on standard hospital charges or we may slap CGHS rates
A cataract surgery could cost up to Rs 10,000 per eye in a govt hospital and Rs 30,000-1,40,000 in a private facility. Supreme Court Tuesday took strong exception to this disparity and inability of the Centre to implement a 14-year-old law-Clinical Establishment (Central Government) Rules-mandating notification of a standard rate in consultation with states for treatment and procedures of ailments in metros, cities and towns.
Govt told SC though it had repeatedly written to states on this, they didn't respond. SC said citizens have a fundamental right to healthcare and the Centre can't shirk its responsibility on this ground.
It asked Union health secretary to call a meeting of his state counterparts to ensure notification of a standard rate within a month. "If Union govt fails to find a solution, then we will consider petitioner's plea for implementing CGHS-prescribed standardised rates," SC warned.
A PIL by NGO 'Veterans Forum for Transparency in Public Life' through advocate Danish Zubair Khan had sought a direction to Centre to determine rate of fee chargeable from patients in terms of Rule 9 of Clinical Establishment (Central Govt) Rules, 2012.
Under the Rules, all hospitals and clinical establishments, to keep intact their registration, must "display rates charged for each type of service provided and facilities available for benefit of patients at a conspicuous place in vernacular as well as in English language; and charge rates for each type of procedures and services within range of rates determined and issued by Centre from time to time, in consultation with state govts."
Petitioner told a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta that Centre acted promptly in notifying standardised rates for treatment of patients during Covid and that if states did not cooperate in framing range of rates for treatment of ailments, it could use powers under central laws to unilaterally notify fees to be charged for different procedures.
(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 28 February 2024)
Supreme Court Approves Rajasthan Government's Two-Child Rule
People with more than two children will not be eligible for government jobs in Rajasthan -- this 1989 law of the state has now got the Supreme Court's seal of approval.
The rule is non-discriminatory, the judges said, hearing a petition challenging it.
It falls within the purview of policy and there is "no need to interfere with it," said the bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Dutta and KV Vishwanathan, in an order on February 20.
The bench upheld the decision of Rajasthan High Court of October 12, 2022, and dismissed the petition of former soldier Ramji Lal Jat.
After retirement from defence services in January 2017, the soldier had applied for the post of a constable in Rajasthan Police in May 2018.
But his application was rejected under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, as he had more than two children after 1 June 2002.
The court said it had earlier approved similar rules – meant to promote family planning -- for contestants of Panchayat elections.
(Courtesy:- NDTV.com, 28 February 2024)
Persons must appear on ED summons: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that persons summoned under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) must appear before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to cooperate with an ongoing investigation, dismissing the Tamil Nadu government’s attempt to stop the federal agency from questioning some of its district collectors in relation to alleged illegal sand mining in the state.
Suspending a Madras high court order that restrained ED from seeking the personal presence of five district collectors of the state, the top court maintained that the officers are “required to respect and respond to the summons” of the agency and ordered the collectors to appear before the investigators on the date assigned by the agency.
“The impugned summonses have been issued by ED in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 50 of PMLA. From a bare reading of the Act, it clearly transpires that the concerned authority has power to summon any person if it considers their attendance necessary during the course of investigation or proceedings under the Act...district collectors and persons to whom summonses have been issued are obliged to respect and respond to said summonses,” held a bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal.
The court order comes at a time when states headed by political parties other than the Bharatiya Janata Party have accused the Union government of targeting political rivals with the help of federal agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation and ED.
(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 28 February 2024)
CBI to probe Vivek Bindra ‘scam’? Supreme Court issues notice. What's the case?
The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition seeking direction to constitute a special team of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the alleged large-scale, nationwide scam perpetrated and done by motivational speaker Vivek Bindra and his Bada Business Pvt Ltd. A bench of justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti on Monday sought the Centre and others' responses to the petition filed by Shubham Chaudhary and others.
"Issue notice returnable in six weeks," the bench said on the February 26 order, news agency ANI reported.
The petitioners claimed that they had deposited their hard-earned money to the money chain like scheme of the Bada Business Pvt Ltd. Advocates Vikas Singh, Sureshan P Vikas Nagwan and Yogesh Aggarwal appeared for the petitioners.
According to the petitioners, the issue has national ramifications as the complainants hail from different states and have already submitted written complaints to the local police.
They prayed for directions to the Centre government to constitute a special investigation team of the CBI to probe the alleged scam perpetrated and done by Vivek Bindra and Bada Business Pvt Ltd whereby he has duped and cheated the petitioners and other general public.
According to the petition, despite submitting written complaints by the petitioners and other similarly placed individuals, no action has been taken by the police.
It is submitted that Vivek Bindra is a self-proclaimed motivational speaker and who, along with his marketing team, deceived the petitioners and other thousands of youngsters, who hail from over a dozen different states from all over India.
"The modus operandi adopted by said person and company is that he uses names of well-known personalities on his websites, in banner advertisements and extensively market out the same by falsely representing that the said known personalities are "Professors" in the paid courses run under the banner of Bada Business and Vivek Bindra," the petition said.
The petitioners said the extensive advertisements are being run on various social media platforms with the sole purpose of enrolling the youngsters in a course that misleadingly promised to train the enrolled candidates in the modes and methods of building a successful business through which one could earn anywhere between ₹15,000 and ₹1,00,000 per month, failing which Vivek Bindra promised to refund the entire fee.
(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 29 February 2024)
*Disclaimer: – Always check with the original copy of judgment from the Court website.
No comments:
Post a Comment